Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 318 Case file # 95-272708 .
Material Examiner: Malone (RQ)
Remarks:
Case resulted in trial, transcript not available.
Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson
Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber
Review commenced at: 10:15AM (Time), 03/16/2001 (Date)
File #: 95-272708
Laboratory #(s): 60516054
- Reviewed Not Reviewed XD og Qo xo
o aq
Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: * Testimony Date(s): Laboratory Report(s): Laboratory Number: 60516054 _ Date:
Laboratory Number: Date:
Laboratory Number: : Date:
Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ
Laboratory Number: 60516054
Reviewed Not Reviewed
o
o
Oo
Aug 22, 1986
Oo
oO
Q
If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: | Submitting agency letter (dated 5-8-86)
Results of Review
Q38, Q41, Ki, K2, K5, K6, K8 4
Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes: Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses
_ Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the - methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? GYes ONo XO Unable to Determine
Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? OYes XONo 0 Unable to Determine
Review of Testimony:
Note: Numbered comments dre required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses
XO Transcript not available. 3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? O Yes ONo O Unable to Determine
4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? = Yes ONo 4 Unable to Determine
5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? OYes GNo OG Unable to Determine
Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed) File #: 95-272708 #1: With microscopic hair comparison, even with the best notes, there is no way to determine the comparison
was performed correctly. A confirmation of the hair matches was apparently obtained from a second examiner.
#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil. RQ uses
abbreviations to indicate the microscopic characteristics of the hair. These abbreviations are difficult to interpret.
Malone’s bench notes indicate that Negroid hair was recovered from Q9 (sheet), Q18 (sheet), Q19 (coat), Q20A (debris from body), Q22 (mug) and Q38 (carpet). The presence of these hairs, foreign to the Caucasian victims and suspect, was not reported. .
Review completed at: 10:45AM = (Time), 03/16/2001
Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0:30 hours
03/16/2001
(Signature) (Date)